THE HOKIANGA RISING.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 55, 7 March 1899, Page 2

THE HOKIANGA RISING.

SELLING ARMS TO NATIVES

EIGHT MEN BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

ONE SENTENCED TO SIX

MONTHS

A number of charges of selling j arms to natives without licenses, (.-oil- j trary to the Arms Act, ISSO, preferred ; chiefly against residents of the Hold- j anga district, were brought up at the . Supreme Court criminal sessions yes- ■ terday afternoon before His Honor ' Mr Justice Conolly. The charges wen? j brought as the result of the Maori ; armed rising against the dog-tax, etc., ; at Waima, Hokianga, last May, under ; Hone Toia, who is now undergoing sentence in Mt. Eden Gaol with several of his followers. The natives had procured arms and ammunition from European dealers m the North, an.l j eight of these were brought up Cor j trial. The charges were that the ac- j cused sold arms and warlike stores to certain natives without a license and contrary to the provisions of the Arms Act, 18S0. About a dozen native witnesses, including several who were arrested by the Government j force at Waima last year, were in at- j tendance to give evidence, together i with Constable MeGilp, of Rawenc. ; The names of the accused person.", ' were: —James Davy Martin, Richard j Grldsworthy, George Edward Hedger, ! Charles Eyes, Albert Haines, Reginald Sommerville Aickin, Win. Henry Black, and Alfred Edwards. James D. Martin was first charged. The charge against him was that on I or about the 4th of April, 189S, at j Waoku, he did sell and dispose of certain arms, to wit, one gun, to Hororaona Heta, without a license under j the Arms Act, ISBO, and also with j selling arms to Hone Mete Rewi. Richard Goldsworthy was charged with that on or about the 4th April at Waoku he did sell and dispose of certain arms and warlike stores, 1o wit one gun and 100 cartridges to Horomana Heta, without a license, in contravention of the Arms Act, 18S0

George Edward Hedger was charged v/ith that on or about the month of January, 1898, at Waoku, he did sVi rcTTaln arms, to wit a gun to Rom Mete Eewi, without a license, and in contravention of the Act. Reginald S. Aickin was charged with that on April 25 at Taheke he did sell one double barrelled bree :h----loading gun to Whanui Puru, and did act as a dealer within the meaning of the Arms Act without having a dealer's license; also that he did on April 30 sell a breech-loading gun_ to Hone Toia, and did on that occasion act as a dealer without possessing a license. Charles Eyes was charged with having on April 28 at Hangahanga (near Waima) sold a gun to Haupehi ]N Terehona, without having a license so to do. Albert Haines was charged with that on April 13, 1898, at Whatiwhatianga, near Hauturu, he did sell one double-barrelled gun to Kawiora, and I act as dealer without possessing a i license; and also with that on April ! 30, IS9S; he did sell three double-bar- ' relied' guns and one single-barrelled Jgun and ten pounds of punpowder to Hone Toia, and did then act as dealer without a license. ■ Win. Henry Black was charged with having at Kawakawa sold two guns and 200 cartridges to Rewi Wiri Kaki, and with having then acted as dealer without a license. Alfred Edwards was charged with having between January 1, 1892, and December 31, 1893, at Kaikohe, sold one gun and 100 cartridges to one Wiremu Komene, and with having acted as dealer without being the possessor of the necessary license under the Arms Act. All the accused pleaded guilty. They were represented by Mr Bloomfield, of Kawakawa. Mr J. A. Tole, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for the prosecution. Martin said he did not think he was doing wrong in selling the go.n; he did not know there was a law against it. Eyes said he sold the gun not knowing .there was any law to prevent him from doing so. Mr Blomfield addressed the Court. He said that there was no 'Gazette' notice to show who were licensing officers under the Act, and the clause of the Act in question was not very stringently enforced for-some years, and was practically obsolete. There had been no inspection of books, and the Act was practically not enforced in the North. The defendants, living in out-of-the-way places, had no knowledge of the necessity for licenses in order to sell arms, and they did not know there was going to be any trouble with the natives. The first four were all settlers living at Waoku, which was in an out-of-the-way place some 30 miles from Waima, The next case was that of Black, w,ho, Mr Blomfield said, had been put to a lot of trouble in connection with the case, as he had to go to Hokianga for the case to be heard, when it should have been heard at Kawakawa. The offence of selling a gun was committed in the interval between the application for renewal of a license and the granting of the license.

His Honor said that in the case of Haines the depositions of' the witnesses showed the case to be a serious one. When Haines sold the guns t.? the natives he must have known there was going to be trouble. He knew very well what Hone Toia and bis people wanted them for. According to the statement of the native witnesses, Haines said several timse: 'If you fight it will be all right; if you don't I shall be all wrong.' Haines knew they were going to fight the Europeans.

Mr Blomfield argued that the accused persons would not be so coldblooded as to sell arms to foster n war against the Europeans by the natives. He asked the Court to admit the accused to the benefit of the First Offenders' Probation Act.

Constable MeGilp, of Bawene, was called by Mr Blomfield. He said the first four prisoners were settlers living in an out-of-the-way place, Waoku. They were respectable men so far as= he knew. Black and Edwards were storekeepers, and were respectabk men. He -had known them many years. There was no inspection of licensed dealers' premises to see what arms they had; not for some years. The licensing officer under the Arms Act was at Eussell, about sixty mile.^ from Waima; the district was a very, large one. The police at each township in the North had been gazetted licensing officers under the Act since November last. He could not say

I whether the Act was fully known, or how many people tookj out licenses. I Mr Aickin wired to witness for instructions re selling arms to natives, j and witness replied that Aiekin must j apply to the nearest Justice (Mr | Glover. Taheke) for a license. . | i By Mr Tolc: All of thosel natives to whom arms were sold worn followers of llono Toia. except one. Sonic of i the guns were surrendered to the I Government force, and witness had | got others since. j To His Honor: Witness cautioner! ! Prunes in 1806, and up to the date of the disturbance, not to sell arms to ■ the natives. Hone Toia"s camp, in 1897, and early in 189S, was at Hau- ; I turn, about two miles from Haines' j ■ store. Subsequently Hc«ie Toia went: ;to I'ukemiro. I His Hor.or said that with regard to ' all these cases but one there seemed to him to be ground for leniency in ! the sentences. The accused persons had acted wrongly and unwisely, but no doubt ignorance of the law on the subject had a good deal to do with it. j He thought the case would be met by i ■ admitting the accused to probation, j ! and accordingly he ordered that all j ! the prisoners except Haines be ad- j mitted to probation under the First i Offenders' Probation Act, each pris- j oner to pay the costs of his own prose- j cution, except in the cases of Blackand : Edwards, whose costs would be limited j jto a certain amount. I Addressing Albert Haines, His ' Honor said he certainly did not think I ! Haines' case was one for probation. ' The evidence on the depositions was j , very damaging. Haines was living ! ' close to the place where the disaffect- ; ed natives were encamped at Hau- , turu, and must have been made aware j of what was going on, and of the resoi lution of the natives to resort to ' arms. The meeting of natives on ■ (April 28 last, at which it was decided to fight, alarmed the whole place, and yet, on the 30th, Haines sold four guns ! and a lot of ammunition to the ringi leader and other natives. It was a very bad case indeed. He would not allow Haines to escape punishment, and he thought his case justified imprisonment. The sentence of the Court on Albert Haines would be that he be imprisoned in Auckland gaol for the term of six calendar months, without hard labour, and that he also pay I the costs of his prosecution.